The year is 2049; 30 years have passed since Blade Runner Rick Deckard "retired" his final skin job, and vanished into the non-existent sunset with the (fellow?) replicant Rachel. A wave of fugitive "reps" arise from the ashes of the Tyrell Corporation, as a different generation of replicants is given birth to, models that have been engineered to be obedient, even to the point of hunting down and killing their own kind, like Ryan Gosling's "K" (short for his serial number KD9-3.7, his "real name"). But, when a routine case leads to the discovery of the remains of a replicant who apparently died giving birth (something believed to be impossible), K will go on a world-shattering journey that will force him to question everything that he believed to be real, alongside a couple of ghosts from the past that haven't been seen in a long, long time.

So that's the basic pitch of Blade Runner 2049 on paper, Denis Villeneuve's unlikely, long-in-in-the-works sequel to Ridley Scott's original 1982 classic, but how does it play out on film? Well, for one thing, Villeneuve & company have more than stayed true to the world that Scott helped create over 3 decades ago, while still finding new, refreshing ways to expand on that vision; the massive cityscape of 2049 Los Angeles still feels just as monolithic and oppressive as it did in 1982, especially when lensed through the eye of modern cinematography icon Roger Deakins' epic, dizzying visuals, as hints of Vangelis's legendary original score wash through the soundtrack, and, while the Tyrell Corporation is no more, many real companies from the original that went bankrupt are still around in 2049, such as Atari and Pan Am (even the Soviet Union still exists in this timeline, to demonstrate the film's fidelity to Scott's canon). Writing-wise, Hampton Fancher and Michael Green find new ways to delve back into the original's signature themes of identity, just exactly what it means to have a soul and to be "human", and the ever-thinning line that supposedly still separates man from his creations, while stylistically, Villeneuve's direction strongly recalls the slow, leisurely pacing, and overall cryptic, alienating tone that keeps Scott's film such a haunting experience all these year later.

...recalls it a bit too much, if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, as 2049 is still a worthwhile film on the whole, and I didn't regret paying extra to see it in theaters at all, but I still couldn't help but feel it would've been better if Villeneuve hadn't tried so hard to exaggerate certain traits from the original as if to try to give us the ultimate Blade Runner experience; 2049's surreally slow pacing is sometimes pushed to the absolute breaking point, and I ended up feeling almost every single minute of the film's 2 & 1/2 hour-plus running time, and the inclusion of certain overly bizarre, dehumanized moments (especially with Jared Leto's reclusive blind industrialist Niander Wallace, who substituted creepy cataracts and pretentious, "poetic" ramblings in place of actual character development) just felt very forced and unnecessary, and was a bit of a cinematic turn off in the end.

Still, 2049 is at its best when Villeneuve allows its sense of humanity to shine through, like with the inner pain and utter confusion that Gosling's K displays as his entire world and very sense of self gets turned completely upside down as his investigation goes deeper and deeper, or with how surprisingly touching his relationship with his holographic "girlfriend" Joi is; the moment where she finally gets to go outside their cramped apartment after K gives her a portable emitter, and she gets to feel rain on her "skin" for the first time was simply beautiful to witness, and a scene where Joi synchronizes her movements with a real woman to give K a sort of one-on-one lovemaking session is one of the coolest sci-fi concepts I've seen in recent years. It even retroactively makes the memories of Deckard & Rachel's relationship more engaging to hear about than it was to witness in the original (classic film or not, that particular aspect of Blade Runner always struck me as rather obligatory and perfunctory), but I'll stop right there, at the risk of spoiling 2049 any further than I already have.

Anyway, like I said before, Blade Runner 2049 isn't a perfect film, and I can't help but feel like it could've been better with a shorter running time and a slightly more accessible tone on the whole, but I also can't help but find it a compelling cinematic experience anyway; the visuals are breathtaking, the concepts and themes are fascinating and genuinely thought-provoking, and it's the rare sequel to an iconic original that (mostly) avoids just coasting on nostalgia audiences may hold for the first film, but rather, actually does something to further develop the world created in the original, making for a "blade" that, flaws and all, I didn't regret running in the end.

I found this to be a pretty good film. I liked the world in the film as it was darkly humorous in many ways, such as how, after terrorist bombings, the public would go back to whatever they were doing almost instantly as if nothing had just happened. There were also great comedic set pieces such as how Sam and another character whose name I forget had to share one desk. It was funny to see them constantly pull it to their side and disrupt the other one. On top of this, I liked the absurdity as it seemed like even the most bizarre things could take place in the film. Of course, there are parts to the film which don't make sense, but I think that's intentional to show how disconcerting the city in the film is. There aren't many films like this around. As it stands now, my rating still sits at an 8/10, but I'm up for revisiting it again.

I had nothing to do tonight, so I decided to watch this film to pass the time. It's very B movie-ish, but it's actually a pretty good one at that. The special effects looked realistic, the varying personalities of the characters were interesting, and there were a few suspenseful moments. If you liked Dog Soldiers, you'll likely enjoy this one as well.

This movie sure caught me off guard. I saw it for the 2nd time today, and I picked up on many more details. It used the concept of time loops to its full potential as its plot was wholly intriguing. It also contained many surprises throughout it which caught me off guard. Even though it takes awhile for the time loops to come into the film, the film which came before it didn't feel dull as the scenes of the characters navigating through the ship felt atmospheric due to the lighting and the usage of sound. Also, even the opening credits were much more interesting on my 2nd viewing. This is probably a controversial opinion, but I'm now convinced that this film ranks up there with other great slasher films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween.

Amongst the recurring Marvel franchises to date, the Thor series seems to have gotten a bit of the short end of the stick; the Iron Man movies got to kick off the whole MCU and were quite successful financially, the Captain America movies got a 2nd wind from the directorial duo of the Russo brothers after a bit of a forgettable origin movie, and the Guardians Of The Galaxy continue to delight critics and audiences alike with their signature style of fun, irreverent, 70's-tune fueled space adventures, but the Thor series, due to a combination of shoehorned-in subplots, painfully obnoxious comic "relief", and supporting characters that are either underutilized or just plain useless, never lived up to enough of its overall potential to truly satisfy...that is, until now. Don't get me wrong, as Thor: Ragnarok still isn't a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's still definitely a step in the right direction for this individual series, and another solid addition to the overall, ever-expanding "Marvel Cinematic Universe".

The primary reason for that is the unexpected addition of New Zealand director Taika Waititi, who, until now, has primarily been known for his comedies, like the small-scale mockumentary What We Do In The Shadows, which was basically like a This Is Spinal Tap for vampires. Such relatively humble work might make Waitit seem like a odd fit for the next Marvel blockbuster, but Waititi immediately proves that he's fit for task right from the opening scene of Ragnarok, as Thor continually mocks and interrupts the demon-god Surtur's generic-ass Villain Monologue about how he's going to destroy Asgaard and everyone and thing Thor knows and loves and yadayadayada, just before he breaks free of his chains as Led Zeppelin's classic "Immigrant Song" hits the soundtrack, just as Thor and Mjolner begin to hit Surtur's legions themselves.

It's an incredibly fun, wonderfully energetic opener to the film, and throughout Thor: Ragnarok, you'll find comparable examples of Waitit's sense of creativity and humor shining through the increasingly-dusty Marvel formula, such as a heroic but cliched proclamation by Thor being interrupted by a giant ball smacking him in the face at an inopportune moment, or the the rich, neon-Skittles colors of "Sakaar", the surreal, metropolis-planet that Thor spends the majority of the film washed up on (as the mostly-useless Earthbound sub-plots from the previous Thor films have finally, mercifully been jettisoned), or the equally colorful motley crew of supporting characters the film boasts, which includes "Scrapper 142", a tough, no-nonsense ex-Valkrie who can down a novelty-sized glass of alien booze before you can finish a sentence, or Korg, a casually silly CGI rock monster voiced by Waititi himself, who lends some down-to-Earth New Zealand flavor to the alien environments, or Jeff Goldblum in full Goldblum mode as the unapologetically hedonistic "Grandmaster", who's relentlessly quirky in that way that only Mr. Goldblum seems able to pull off.

And all of that isn't even mentioning the new-found Odd Couple/buddy comedy dynamic that Thor shares with an exiled Incredible Hulk on Sakaar, or the way the normally demure and reserved Cate Blanchett puts in a refreshingly campy, vampy performance as the sinister, deadly confident "Goddess Of Death" Hela... although, not mentioning her here might be for the best. Don't get me wrong, as Hela definitely is fun performance to watch, but the sub-plot surrounding her takeover of Asgaard generally feels like a perfunctory afterthought here, and often when the film cut back to her various schemings there, I found myself fairly unengaged, and eager to return to Sakaar to see what new sheninagans Thor and his merry band of side-players were getting into now.

That flaw, along with the occasional dramatic moments here lacking weight (Odin's death scene made me feel next to nothing, even with "Sir" Anthony Hopkins' regal performance) ultimately prevent Raganrok from living up to its full potential, and I can't help but find myself wishing that Waititi had tried harder for a more even balance between the light and heavy moments here. However, that being said, I still ultimately didn't regret paying to see this one in theaters, as, flaws and all, Thor: Ragarok is still a fun, creative, unusually colorful time at the movies, and it finally gives us the legitimately good Thor movie we've been waiting for for over half a decade now. Hammer Of The Gods, strike on!

The Space Between Us (2017) Interesting, but bland. I might like it better as I ruminate on it. IMDb users were not kind to it. But there are only 28,159 ratings. They average to 6.4/10.

Captain America: Civil War (2016) My first Cap'n America film. I saw The Avengers (2012)when it was in theaters. Lordy, has it been that long!? The best part of this one was the few minutes Spider Man was on screen. Makes me want to go ahead and dive into my Homecoming 3D.

Arrival (2016) Very interesting. Probably worth another watch, which I can do because I streamed it on Amazon Prime Video. Whether I will or not...we'll see.

_________________Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The Square - So many good things. I'm not sure why people complain about so many good things, especially when they miss all of the entire points of the film. There are a lot of points, and they missed them all! Why?

The Square - So many good things. I'm not sure why people complain about so many good things, especially when they miss all of the entire points of the film. There are a lot of points, and they missed them all! Why?

Because they're too square.

Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:31 am

Gort

Re: Recently Seen

Popcorn Reviews wrote:

My favorite film of 2016.

I remembered that you liked the film while watching it. Couldn't recall where you ranked it. I can see why it was your best of the year, though. In fact, reading that and seeing that the movie was so easy to get to, went a long way toward getting me to watch it.

_________________Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The Square - So many good things. I'm not sure why people complain about so many good things, especially when they miss all of the entire points of the film. There are a lot of points, and they missed them all! Why?

Captain America: Civil War (2016) My first Cap'n America film. I saw The Avengers (2012)when it was in theaters. Lordy, has it been that long!? The best part of this one was the few minutes Spider Man was on screen. Makes me want to go ahead and dive into my Homecoming 3D.

This was probably my favorite MCU movie to date, followed closely by the original Guardians; Avengers WHO?

_________________Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The Bridge on the River Kwai - 9/10. I've rented this DVD on Netflix a couple times, but as I've done with other movies I perceive as "eat your vegetables" movies, I let the envelope gather dust until the urge to get the next disc in my queue forces me to return it. After renting it again and finally watching it, I admit that my assumptions were false: this movie is much more entertaining, engaging and steadily paced than I had anticipated. Set in a Burmese POW camp in 1943, it's about a squad of British prisoners, led by unflappable Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness), whose Japanese captors force to build a bridge in a strategic location. Instead of refusing their demands or exploiting the incompetence of the project's manager, Nicholson's pride and desire to make his squad feel useful result in them constructing an engineering masterpiece. Naturally, the Allies target the bridge for destruction, and as luck would have it, there's a recent escapee from the same camp - hedonistic American Cmdr. Shears (William Holden) - who has insider knowledge. Watching this affair play out is as entertaining as I've described, but the real fun comes from ruminating on the moral dilemma it presents: if you were in Nicholson's shoes, would you have done the same thing? Ultimately, though, the movie's main focus is war and how it blurs traditional notions of morality. For instance, much has been said about the relationship between Nicholson and Saito (Sessue Hayakawa), the POW camp's tyrannical director. However, I found the dichotomy between Nicholson and Shears more fascinating. At first, Shears' hedonism and desire to save his own skin seems repugnant when compared to Nicholson's professionalism, but as their paths converge, Shears' position ends up looking more honorable.

_________________Last Great Movie SeenPaddington 2 (King, 2018)

Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:46 am

Stu

Re: Recently Seen

Gort wrote:

Which one, Civil War or the other one you mentioned?

The Avengers; it certainly isn't a bad movie per se (none of the MCU films to date have been, IMO), but it is the worst, least memorable one of the bunch so far. It felt like Marvel felt that, in order to make all these disparate characters work together in the same movie, the overall tone and style of it had to almost be as generic as it possibly could, which is such nonsense. Even Age Of Ultron, while certainly not a great movie, was still better for me because at least parts of it were kind of interesting to watch...

Torgo wrote:

Hi, I am (was) MaxRenn on RT. Here's the last writeup I posted:

The Bridge on the River Kwai

Hi Max, that's one of my favorite movies, along with Lawrence Of Arabia, of course; have you gotten around to seeing that one yet, per chance?

I jumped back and forth quite a few times when I saw this film for my first time. At first, I thought it took too long to get going, but after looking up a few critical essays, I decided to revisit it as I felt like I'd enjoy it more, having learned of more insight. As expected, I found more merits with it on my 2nd viewing. Now, I consider it to be pretty good, but it's not without its flaws.

Thomas is a photographer who's bored with his job. One day while taking photos in the park, he takes several photos of a woman who demands he gives back the photos he took of her, to which he refuses. After he goes home and prints them out, he notices something out of the ordinary on one of them. After he blows several of them up, he comes to realize that he might've just photographed a murder.

I get why people think as highly of this film as they do. As for what I think, however, I more or less think it works. After I watched this movie for my first time, I looked up different critical essays to see what other people thought of it. From what I found, many people brought up the fact that Thomas seems to find a way to escape his boring job only to be thrust back into it since he didn't solve the "murder" or whatever it was which he photographed (film critic Roger Ebert argued that what Thomas photographed is ambiguous). I was a bit confused after reading these interpretations, because I didn't remember Thomas showing much boredom at all.

I decided to watch the movie again, specifically the opening scenes where he was at his job. The first scene at his job showed him photographing a female model. As he did so, he proceeded to climb over her as he took them. I was confused by that scene, because he didn't seem bored at all while doing it. He seemed to be having a blast. The next scene showed him slumped down on a couch. Admittedly, Thomas shows a clear sense of boredom in that scene both by his facial expressions and his body movements. Then, the next scene at his job showed him photographing 5 models. While he clearly didn't seem excited here, I wouldn't describe his reaction as boredom. He actually seemed kind of angry and hostile towards the women. Relative to showing how bored Thomas was with his job, however, I think that, despite a couple unfitting parts, this aspect was represented pretty well. The "point" of the film may have had a greater impact on me if Antonioni reshot a couple of scenes and removed a couple parts, but what I got was pretty good.

In addition to this, there were quite a few other aspects to the film which I loved quite a bit. For instance, the final scene was a great way to conclude the film as it summarized the "Briefly woken from a boring life" point which the film that came before it was based around. I thought the meaning of the ending was a bit obvious, but I still think it was a clever way to end the film since it lingered in my head long afterwards. Also, I felt an enormous amount of dread at the ending since, a few days before watching this film, I watched another Antonioni film, one where the protagonist died at the end (I won't reveal which one it is due to spoilers). I thought for sure that this movie was going to go in the same direction.

Also, the middle scene where Thomas blows up the photos he takes and discovers the truth about what happened in the park is a well-edited and captivating sequence which would make Hitchcock proud. Since some of the objects in the photos were small and near-indecipherable, I paid extra close attention to them and I had to carefully scan those objects as they may've been murder weapons or blood stains. When Thomas printed out more blown up photos, the sequence got more suspenseful up until Thomas discovered the murder weapon, a shot which is the climax of the scene.

However, another scene, which is my other criticism with the film, was inserted between the middle scene. While Thomas was studying the photos, he had a romp with 2 female models who turned up at his studio. I found this scene to be pretty out-of-place. I get that he's likely in a good mood since he believed he prevented a murder, but he should've reported his findings to the police at that point. Since he gave Jane (who was a potential accomplice to murder) the wrong photo reel, his life could've been in danger. For that reason, I found that scene particularly odd.

In conclusion, while I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, it doesn't quite reach greatness for me. It has several fantastic scenes and a compelling meaning behind it. There may have been a few weaker parts which took me out of the film, but in my opinion, the good far outweighs the bad. Not my favorite Antonioni, but it's still a must-see.

Leviathan triumphs as it shows how much a documentary can do in terms of atmosphere. Numerous scenes from the film are so well shot in terms of their usage of camera placement, lighting, and sound that you quickly forget you're watching a documentary about a fishing boat and that you're watching a David Lynchesque, absurdist nightmare. The shots of the waves crashing against the ship at night produce a foreboding effect to an intense degree and the underwater shots feel hypnotic and, at times, hallucinatory. Every shot in the film seems to brim with surrealism. There's very little dialogue in this movie, but this makes it feel all the more mysterious. I've seen some people try and derive a deeper meaning out of this film. However, I don't think this is the kind of film which requires a concrete explanation. I feel like someone watching it should just think of it as an exercise in the concept of less is more in terms of its atmospheric building. It won't work for everyone, but I found it to be a highly compelling film.

Here's my overly long review for the overly disappointing waste of time that was Justice League:

Look in the dictionary for the definition of "Troubled Production", and you'll practically see the poster for Justice League next to it; after a planned production by (of all people) George Miller was sadly scrapped, the project gathered dust in production Hell for nearly a decade before the inception of the oft-troubled "DC Cinematic Universe" gave it a 2nd wind. Even then, however, it's been a rocky road, as the rather negative critical reception and (most importantly, of course) the underwhelming box office performance of Zack Snyder's ambitious but horribly misguided Batman V. Superman last year gave Warner Brothers execs cold feet about the direction of what was supposed to be their next flagship franchise, resulting in their more ambitious plans for a two-part duo of Justice League films to be scrapped, as well as a mandate for the film to be no longer than 2 hours no matter what, a tall order for what's the first official gathering of the "League" in this particular universe, especially when half of these characters still haven't been given their own solo outings yet, and hence, still haven't been properly introduced within this particular series (the shameless teasers rammed down our collective throat in Batman V.Superman shouldn't count, and you know it).

From there, things got even messier, as a family tragedy earlier this year forced Snyder to step down in order to emotionally recover, just before expensive and extensive reshoots were scheduled to begin (which pushed the film's budget up to a record-breaking $300 million), leading Warner Brothers to pick Mr. Avengers himself, Joss Whedon, of all people, to swoop in and direct whatever else was left to complete on Justice League (while one producer claimed Whedon "only" shot 20% of the final product at most, rumors abound that he shot much, much more). So, what we end up with here is one of the most problematic productions in cinema history, coming out of a "cinematic universe" that has produced mostly very mixed (at best) films so far, with material from two different directors who have two very different, almost diametrically-opposed sensibilities, all Frankenstein-ed together into one final mish-mash of a product, if you can call it that. So, knowing all this, Justice League should be an ever bigger disaster than Murderman V. Captain Hypocrite: Yawn Of Justass was, right? Well, actually, it isn't... but, it's a much less interesting film for that, surprisingly enough.

First off, while I'm not sure which aspects of Justice League were Snyder's doing, and what can be credited to the Whedon-helmed rewrites/reshoots, there's still surprisingly little stylistic clash between the two very disparate filmmakers apparent here, but that's because the movie is just so... generic on the whole. There are very few of Snyder's stylistic fingerprints visible here; the only scene here that really screamed "SNYDER!" to me was the unnecessarily dreary, slow-motion opening credits montage (because he's totally never done that in any other movies before) while, on the other hand, it feels like Whedon's primary contribution to the film is a hefty overdose of constant jokes, quippy one-liners, and otherwise forced bits of MCU-wannabe "fun", as what should be the flagship franchise of the DCEU attempts to compensate for the audiences who may have been turned off of this particular "cinematic universe" by the extremely grim, relentlessly dour tone of Batman Vs. Superman (I am not calling it "V Superman"), and in the process of doing so, grossly overcorrects, resulting in a film that is often rather fake and forced in its desperate attempts to be more "likeable", something that at least the Marvelverse can rarely be accused of.

Don't get me wrong, as about half of the lighter moments in Justice League actually do land, and totally worked for me (one early bit involving The Flash using his signature power to prank a rude, unsuspecting gentleman was particularly amusing), but the rest of the "comedic" moments here were just so obnoxiously unnecessary and forced in their attempts to fool you into thinking that the movie is actual, legitimate fun, that I was often just irritated by them instead. It seems as though the suits at DC wanted to be much more like Marvel/Whedon's work, but they forget to be careful what they wished for, apparently. And, after that, what you left with otherwise here is a very generic superhero team-up movie, one that not even bringing in the man who directed THE definitive superhero team-up movie of all time could salvage (then again, I never really liked the original Avengers in the first place, but it was at least better than this). The main plot is one of the most simplistic, rudimentary, cookie-cutter superhero stories you could imagine, with an astonishingly dull, horned helmet-wearing alien (remind you of anyone?) named Steppenwolf as the main buddie, played by Ciarán Hinds in one of the most thankless roles in a movie that's basically a series of thankless roles; I mean, I honestly don't think I could recall a single full line of dialogue Hinds uttered here if you held a knife to my throat and gave me until the count of "3".

Steppenwolf is not only given absolutely zero character development or backstory, but he also doesn't happen to do anything even remotely interesting in the course of his recovering of the 3 main plot MacGuffins, magical glowing cubes that hold a seemingly infinite power within (because, again, never seen that in a superhero movie before). His "grand scheme" is a plan to destroy the world as we know it by using the cubes to transform it into a version of his own Hellish homeworld, because, yet again, totally never seen that before. Of course, the basic building blocks aren't necessarily the main problem here, as, after all, the original Guardians Of The Galaxy has a rather forgettable story and main villian, and it's still one of my favorite entries in the MCU, but it's in the individual execution of the base elements that make and break any particular film, and is what ultimately breaks Justice League; for all the talk of its record-breaking budget, this is a shockingly cheap, ugly-looking film, with incredibly hokey-looking costumes, ridiculously artificial, unnecessarily greenscreened environments, and subpar CGI that was rushed out due to the small window of time between the end of reshoots the film's actual release, and, even by the relatively-low standards of a modern Hollywood blockbuster, it's is a disappointingly irrelevant, just-going-through-the-motions release.

It's basically just a series of random, generic, laughably low-stakes superhero scenes doing the bare minimum of establishing these characters and their relationships to each other, with the barest of excuses to get them all gathered together, and while I would go so far as to say it's a bad film (as I haven't actually bothered seeing any "bad" movies lately), it is the worst thing I've purchased a ticket for all year, and all in all, I wish I had saved the $10 for something more enjoyable, such as lighting it on fire; at least then, I'd get to watch some pretty flames dance for a few seconds.

When you're hunting wolves, you don't look for where they might be. You look for where they've been.

In Wind River, the tracks of predators and prey, both animal and human alike, constantly dot the endless, perpetually snowy landscape, inevitably leading to traumas that, while they may be past, are anything but forgotten. The "River" in question is a Native American reservation in Wyoming, where, somewhere in this desolate, lifeless landscape the size of Rhode Island, an 18 year-old Native American girl is found brutally raped, her body frozen to the ground so solid that a chainsaw has to clear her from the unforgiving frost. A young agent from the FBI gets called in, a local Wildlife Service agent gets involved, and together, the two of them must find out what happened to the girl on that bitterly cold, horrible night.

If all of that sounds like setup for a rather familiar detective thriller, that's because it is; Wind River doesn't break any new (frozen) ground when it comes to its particular genre, but then again, it doesn't pretend to. Rather, first-time director (but veteran screenwriter) Taylor Sheridan takes the suspenseful style he honed on the American frontiers of West Texas and the Mexican border in Hell Or High Water & Sicario, and applies it to the forgotten, neglected wasteland of Wind River, a place that's depressed in both the economic and spiritual sense of the word, a place where poverty is everywhere, drug addiction runs rampant, and, due to the bureaucratic nightmares that intersect between tribal, local, and Federal authorities when it comes to jurisdiction over crimes on reservations, many serious offences (including murders) are often never punished, or even solved.

Into this daunting situation steps Elizabeth Olsen's determined, but out-of-her-element FBI rookie Jane Banner, joined by Jeremy Renner's grieving, divorced, world-weary Wildlife agent Cory Lambert, a man who has a rather personal connection to this particular case, as, not only was he the one who discovered the young woman's body, but the girl in question used to be close friends with his daughter, who herself was murdered under similar, unsolved circumstances a couple of years ago, a loss that Lambert admits he still hasn't recovered from, nor ever will. But, like I said before, pretty much none of the base material here is particularly original, it's the personal touch in Sheridan's direction that makes all the difference, as he never hesitates from taking the time to slow down the pace drastically, and just let us get to know the characters ourselves through quiet scenes of his insightful, sharply-written dialogue, balancing the character to character heart-to-hearts inbetween the film's more visceral, intense thrills.

And, while the central mystery isn't much of a, well, mystery, as, except for an unexpected flashback that takes place late in the third act, the plot proceeds in a rather simple, straightforward manner, with next to no red herrings or "persons of interest" to speak of, it isn't the suspense of where the investigation may lead that makes Wind River so good, nor is it the thrills of its various armed standoffs/shootouts (although those are quite good in their own right), but it's the touches of personal, human drama that happen along the way, the way that Sheridan genuinely cares for his characters here, and the way that they're treated as much more than just hollow puppets to move the story along, that makes River as powerful, as memorable a cinematic experience as it is. Long after you leave the comfort of your air-conditioned theater, the physical & emotional atmosphere of the vast, frozen landscape presented here will chill your bones, the tracks dotting it leaving visible marks as undeniable as the spiritual ones staining the souls of the people who live there.

Favorite moment: the night of the murder sceneFinal Score: 8.5

I just saw this earlier today. I agree that it was really good. It's a captivating crime film with well-developed characters. Of course, there really isn't much of a plot twist in revealing how the victims were killed. However, I don't think it's a requirement for all crime films to have a plot twist, so I didn't mind that. I also liked that the movie didn't have the 2 main characters fall in love, because I feel like that would've come off as tacked on and clunky. I thought the movie was going to go that way for a bit, but I'm glad it didn't. Obviously, it doesn't break any new ground, but it's still a great film.

Hot mess. Lead actor is a poor man's Keanu Reeves. Looks too much like a live action Space Ace video game

Seventh Voyage of Sinbad (1958) - 9/10

Harryhausen's Kali fight scene is one of his greatest achievements. Kathryn Grant is stunning. Sadly, this movie probably could not be made "as-is" today, because 'MERICANS would lose their shit over people giving praise to Allah.

_________________By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strongAnd everywhere was a song and a celebrationAnd I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes riding shotgun in the skyTurning into butterflies above our nation

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:08 pm

Torgo

Re: Recently Seen

Good Time - 8/10. This is a very good New York crime thriller that sort of resembles early Scorsese. Robert Pattinson plays a crook who ropes his mentally challenged brother into a bank heist, but when the heist goes wrong and his brother gets arrested, he goes through a night of hell to try and rescue him. It's gritty, darkly funny at times and has a Tangerine Dream-esque score that keeps the tension high. If Twilight ruined your taste for anything starring Pattinson, this movie will cleanse your palate.

_________________Last Great Movie SeenPaddington 2 (King, 2018)

Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:20 am

John Dumbear

Re: Recently Seen

"Shaun the Sheep" - 9/10

Funny and a nice script makes for a very enjoyable watch. A pleasant surprise find.

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:58 am

Macrology

Re: Recently Seen

Lacombe, Lucien

A masterpiece that takes an event ripe with drama -- a young French boy collaborating with the Nazis -- and drains it of all dramatic impetus, leaving a film that's both serene and troubling. Other films in this mold: Bertolucci's La commare secca, Altman's Thieves Like Us, and Malle's Pretty Baby.

Seeing this after reading In the Cafe of Lost Youth has given me a fuller appreciation of Modiano's talents as well. He wrote this when he was 27. The fucker.

_________________Ma`crol´o`gyn. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.

Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:49 am

Stu

Re: Wind River (Sheridan, '17)

Popcorn Reviews wrote:

I just saw this earlier today. I agree that it was really good. It's a captivating crime film with well-developed characters. Of course, there really isn't much of a plot twist in revealing how the victims were killed. However, I don't think it's a requirement for all crime films to have a plot twist, so I didn't mind that. I also liked that the movie didn't have the 2 main characters fall in love, because I feel like that would've come off as tacked on and clunky. I thought the movie was going to go that way for a bit, but I'm glad it didn't. Obviously, it doesn't break any new ground, but it's still a great film.

8/10

Agreed; while I do feel that Sheridan missed a big opportunity by not developing Olson's character more than he did (as she felt a bit one-dimensional), and tried a bit too hard at times to force Renner's otherwise everyday tracker into a cold-blooded badass, it really was one of those cases where the flaws of the film aren't enough to overcome all the things it does well and how well it does them, ultimately. It's still in my top 5 of the year so far, so I'm really glad I put off seeing IT for another week, and caught it before it left my town's local theater.

Agreed; while I do feel that Sheridan missed a big opportunity by not developing Olson's character more than he did (as she felt a bit one-dimensional), and tried a bit too hard at times to force Renner's otherwise everyday tracker into a cold-blooded badass, it really was one of those cases where the flaws of the film aren't enough to overcome all the things it does well and how well it does them, ultimately. It's still in my top 5 of the year so far, so I'm really glad I put off seeing IT for another week, and caught it before it left my town's local theater.

I agree with those sentiments. As far as 2017 releases go, I admit it - I haven't seen too much. Usually, I see a few recent films throughout the year, Then, I cram in several ones during Christmas break. Next, I might check out Coco (since it just came out at the theaters) and Logan. Then, I'll wait for some "Best Movies of 2017" videos to be released to get a ton of recommendations. Here's everything I've seen so far:

It Comes at Night - 8/10Gerald's Game - 7/10Rakka - 8/10Beauty and the Beast - 4/10Dunkirk - 6/10 (I enjoyed it more on my 2nd viewing)Zygote - 8/10War for the Planet of the Apes - 7/10Wind River - 8/10Firebase - 7/10Thor: Ragnarok - 7/10 (I don't care for superhero films that much, but I did enjoy this one)

What strikes me about this movie is that, despite its conventional appearance, it's every bit as concerned with twisting cinematic cliches and viewer expectations as writer/director Martin McDonagh's earlier, more self-referential but overall less impressive Seven Psychopaths. A character is set up with a terminal illness that seems destined to lead to a melodramatic reconciliation among the characters; except he blows his brains out halfway through the movie, deeply complicating matters for the protagonist. Another character's arc takes him from being a racist, corrupt cop to a humbled burn victim who seems poised to crack the central mystery of the movie; except it turns out to be a dead end and the mystery is never solved. And then there's Frances McDormand's Mildred Hayes. It's a powerhouse performance, one of her best alongside Marge Gunderson. Part of what's so remarkable about it is how our feelings toward the character change as more information is doled out throughout the movie. She's at times cast as righteous, petty, funny and vindictive, a heroine and a victim, and McDormand's performance works because as each of these facets of her character are revealed they never seem inconsistent with the person McDormand was playing just the scene before. It's a wholly integrated character we come to know bit by bit as McDonagh carefully reframes how we see her. Because McDonagh doesn't lampshade this stuff the way he did in Seven Psychopaths, the cleverness doesn't get in the way of the emotional impact, so we can at once feel Mildred's outrage and be startled by her cruelty. There's nothing here as funny as the material in In Bruges, but it is significantly more affecting.

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:47 am

Torgo

Re: Recently Seen

Stu wrote:

Hi Max, that's one of my favorite movies, along with Lawrence Of Arabia, of course; have you gotten around to seeing that one yet, per chance?

I watched it in my early twenties, so I probably didn't have the patience or attention span to appreciate it. I should give it another chance.However, I plan on checking out Doctor Zhivago next.

_________________Last Great Movie SeenPaddington 2 (King, 2018)

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:57 am

Stu

Re: Wind River (Sheridan, '17)

Popcorn Reviews wrote:

I agree with those sentiments. As far as 2017 releases go, I admit it - I haven't seen too much. Usually, I see a few recent films throughout the year, Then, I cram in several ones during Christmas break. Next, I might check out Coco (since it just came out at the theaters) and Logan. Then, I'll wait for some "Best Movies of 2017" videos to be released to get a ton of recommendations. Here's everything I've seen so far:

It Comes at Night - 8/10Gerald's Game - 7/10Rakka - 8/10Beauty and the Beast - 4/10Dunkirk - 6/10 (I enjoyed it more on my 2nd viewing)Zygote - 8/10War for the Planet of the Apes - 7/10Wind River - 8/10Firebase - 7/10Thor: Ragnarok - 7/10 (I don't care for superhero films that much, but I did enjoy this one)

Yeah, Coco was a really good Pixar, and as for Logan, it's definitely on my top 10 of the year so far, which currently looks like this:

Want to see this so badly, and fortunately, it finally expands out to my medium-sized city this weekend, so I'll be first in line for it there, definitely. Now, if only we would get Lady Bird, which apparently just surpassed Toy Story 2 to be the most-reviewed movied to hold a 100% rating back at The Other Place...

Want to see this so badly, and fortunately, it finally expands out to my medium-sized city this weekend, so I'll be first in line for it there, definitely.

After you see it, I'd recommend reading Rex Reed's review (alliteration unintended). Not because it's perceptive, mind you, but because of how much basic information that old dope gets wrong right from the beginning. It's kind of staggering.

_________________"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:09 am

Jinnistan

Re: Recently Seen

Roman J. Israel, Esq. - 8/10

Critics seem to have unfairly maligned this involving character study of an old school civil rights attorney whom time has past by and gratitude has evaded, the kind of pro who will take a contempt charge on principle while other, far more successful, attorneys seem to coast by with minimal conviction or knowledge of the law, happily complicit in a cynical and thankless system. Denzel Washington has his best role in years and doesn't squander the opportunity. His refusal to sell out is portrayed as a kind of mental disorder for those around him, some quaint relic of antique ideals. There's lots of social commentary in the film, but most overtly when Israel addresses a group of millennial activists and is confronted with those who have stood on the shoulders of the civil rights movement and who now assume that change is something to be given to them. "Freedom is something you give to yourself". When Israel invokes the 6th Amendment, he's scoffed at for "lawyer speak", and it's unavoidable not to think of the recent William & Mary incident when especially naive activists shouted down an ACLU speaker with "The revolution will not uphold the constitution". Even though the film was made long before that particular incident, it isn't difficult to imagine what the lawyer who consults the spectres of Bayard Rustin and Angela Davis would have to say in the face of such a ridiculous stance.

And those are the ones on Israel's side, as he touts his longstanding dream to overhaul the legal system of plea bargaining. Along the way, he gets caught up with his own cynical temptations, a Lord Jim-esque folly that unravels his otherwise faultless integrity. A good, thankless man is not long for this world that flatters the complicit. The critics, at least, seem to prefer socioopaths.

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:19 am

Rock

Re: Wind River (Sheridan, '17)

BL wrote:

After you see it, I'd recommend reading Rex Reed's review (alliteration unintended). Not because it's perceptive, mind you, but because of how much basic information that old dope gets wrong right from the beginning. It's kind of staggering.

How would you describe the size of his errors as compared to farm equipment or wild animals? Harvester-sized? Comparable to a female rhino?

How would you describe the size of his errors as compared to farm equipment or wild animals? Harvester-sized? Comparable to a female rhino?

Oh, it's the whole fucking zoo. For instance, he thinks In Bruges was McDonagh's follow-up to Seven Psychopaths and that it's about "a racist dwarf hooked on horse tranquilizers." I mean, sure, that's something that's in the movie, but it's akin to describing The Godfather as being about a very bad day in the life of a horse.

_________________"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie

Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:32 am

Torgo

Re: Recently Seen

The Man Who Invented Christmas - 6/10. Like Shakespeare in Love, Philomena, Woman in Gold, etc., this is yet another story of someone who struggles for inspiration, takes on an important assignment and has a life-changing experience. At this point, movies like these are to the drama genre as superhero origin stories are to the blockbuster. To be fair, the direction is slightly less pedestrian than it is in those other movies, the performances are all strong - I especially liked the always reliable Christopher Plummer as Scrooge and Jonathan Pryce as Charles Dickens' father - and while they suggest that he was schizophrenic, the scenes where Scrooge, Marley, Tiny Tim, etc. converse with Charles is a clever way of depicting the artistic process. Even so, your time would be better spent watching an A Christmas Carol adaptation, especially if you've never seen one before.

_________________Last Great Movie SeenPaddington 2 (King, 2018)

Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:41 am

Wooley

Re: Recently Seen

Justice League

Just has to be seen to be believed. The only things I've been able to think of to compare it to are Ultraviolet and Ghost Rider.It was clear a few minutes in that this was going to be a $300M B-movie (although it was really hard to see where the money went), but just how B I was not prepared for. There have been some really bad superhero movies and I have seen most although not all of them. This was... it's hard to describe. I mean, Sucker Punch is MUCH better than Justice League. And Batman vs. Superman is practically Citizen Kane by comparison. And yet, it was sort of fun to watch just how bad it could get, just how bad-looking and poorly CGI'd and terribly written and awfully plotted and awkwardly toned and uncomfortably acted and at the same time garish and loud and in-your-face it could get. It was just so awkward from start to finish.I'm actually glad I went, it was a fucking spectacle that I will not soon forget.

Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:01 pm

BL

Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:

terribly written and awfully plotted

I think my favorite aspect in this regard was how

everyone suddenly just intuits that the motherboxes can bring Superman back to life, and then Batman's back to his "if it's a 1% possibility, we have to treat it as a 100% certainty" line of reasoning. I mean, that's a huge leap in logic, and they just paper it over with the same goofy motivation that made no sense in the previous movie that everyone hated.

_________________"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie

Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:27 am

Wooley

Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:

I think my favorite aspect in this regard was how

everyone suddenly just intuits that the motherboxes can bring Superman back to life, and then Batman's back to his "if it's a 1% possibility, we have to treat it as a 100% certainty" line of reasoning. I mean, that's a huge leap in logic, and they just paper it over with the same goofy motivation that made no sense in the previous movie that everyone hated.

Agreed.Then there were things like:

Batman suddenly acts like an asshole to Wonder Woman, then goes in the other room and actually says out loud (paraphrase) "I was an asshole to Wonder Woman cuz I need ti push her to become a leader" and then a few scenes later she comes in and is all nice to him and he apologizes and she's like "No, I understand, you were trying to push me to become a leader" and then they go into battle and she smiles and says "On my lead."

In a normal movie I would have thrown up in my mouth a little, but this movie was so ridiculous that I actually sorta grinned and chuckled.

Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:02 am

Stu

Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:

I think my favorite aspect in this regard was how

everyone suddenly just intuits that the motherboxes can bring Superman back to life, and then Batman's back to his "if it's a 1% possibility, we have to treat it as a 100% certainty" line of reasoning. I mean, that's a huge leap in logic, and they just paper it over with the same goofy motivation that made no sense in the previous movie that everyone hated.

Yeah:

I also hated how pointless and poorly justified the League's fight with "evil" Superman was. They desperately tried to force some sort of battle to provide some physical conflict at the film's halfway point, so they just thought, "Well, the League already fought our incredibly memorable main villain Steppenwolf, and they're going to fight him again for our big, ugly, bloated-CGI climax, so we can't use him again... hey, let's just have Superman come back and fight everyone for a minute because he doesn't know who he is or something" (even though he called back to BvS by asking Batman if he bleeds, so I guess he does know who he is...?).

And that scene's even more problematic when you consider how the DCEU has had a poor track record in the first place when it comes to portraying Superman as the properly heroic ideal he's supposed to be, the kind of character they pretend they're still doing justice to with moments like the shot of young Clark walking in the breeze wearing a red towel at the end of Man Of Steel, which is supposed to be inspiring... right after we witnessed the adult version of him participate in a city-destroying battle that looks like 9/11 times a thousand, but he seem to almost not notice it at all because he's too busy kissing Lois Lane, and we're somehow supposed to be happy for them, making out on the fresh ashes of Metropolis's very own Ground Zero.

And the "evil" Superman fight is even more disappointing in the context of Justice League, because I was beginning to think that they were trying to course-correct this Superman with scenes like the opening flashback footage of Superman being actually, well... Superman-y, in his cute little talk with the admiring kids, or the way Bruce talked about how Clark would be a better leader than him because he grew up among normal people, in a middle-class, middle America childhood on a farm... and then they go and make him evil for a minute for no good reason. I mean, Flash's line about him possibly coming back the "Pet Sematary" way was one of the bits of comic relief that actually worked in the movie, but I had no idea it was meant to be legitimate foreshadowing, for fuck's sake. Such a stupid, pointless scene.

I also hated how pointless and poorly justified the League's fight with "evil" Superman was. They desperately tried to force some sort of battle to provide some physical conflict at the film's halfway point, so they just thought, "Well, the League already fought our incredibly memorable main villain Steppenwolf, and they're going to fight him again for our big, ugly, bloated-CGI climax, so we can't use him again... hey, let's just have Superman come back and fight everyone for a minute because he doesn't know who he is or something" (even though he called back to BvS by asking Batman if he bleeds, so I guess he does know who he is...?).

And that scene's even more problematic when you consider how the DCEU has had a poor track record in the first place when it comes to portraying Superman as the properly heroic ideal he's supposed to be, the kind of character they pretend they're still doing justice to with moments like the shot of young Clark walking in the breeze wearing a red towel at the end of Man Of Steel, which is supposed to be inspiring... right after we witnessed the adult version of him participate in a city-destroying battle that looks like 9/11 times a thousand, but he seem to almost not notice it at all because he's too busy kissing Lois Lane, and we're somehow supposed to be happy for them, making out on the fresh ashes of Metropolis's very own Ground Zero.

And the "evil" Superman fight is even more disappointing in the context of Justice League, because I was beginning to think that they were trying to course-correct this Superman with scenes like the opening flashback footage of Superman being actually, well... Superman-y, in his cute little talk with the admiring kids, or the way Bruce talked about how Clark would be a better leader than him because he grew up among normal people, in a middle-class, middle America childhood on a farm... and then they go and make him evil for a minute for no good reason. I mean, Flash's line about him possibly coming back the "Pet Sematary" way was one of the bits of comic relief that actually worked in the movie, but I had no idea it was meant to be legitimate foreshadowing, for fuck's sake. Such a stupid, pointless scene.

Absolutely true, that part, which should have been great in a much better movie, was so botched, like almost every minute of this movie. It was just awkward and it looked so B-movie.There must be dozens of poor moments like this throughout the movie. The "Pet Semetery" joke was good but you're right it ended up harbinging (more) failure.

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:59 pm

Charles Longboat Jr.

Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - 9/10

What strikes me about this movie is that, despite its conventional appearance, it's every bit as concerned with twisting cinematic cliches and viewer expectations as writer/director Martin McDonagh's earlier, more self-referential but overall less impressive Seven Psychopaths. A character is set up with a terminal illness that seems destined to lead to a melodramatic reconciliation among the characters; except he blows his brains out halfway through the movie, deeply complicating matters for the protagonist. Another character's arc takes him from being a racist, corrupt cop to a humbled burn victim who seems poised to crack the central mystery of the movie; except it turns out to be a dead end and the mystery is never solved. And then there's Frances McDormand's Mildred Hayes. It's a powerhouse performance, one of her best alongside Marge Gunderson. Part of what's so remarkable about it is how our feelings toward the character change as more information is doled out throughout the movie. She's at times cast as righteous, petty, funny and vindictive, a heroine and a victim, and McDormand's performance works because as each of these facets of her character are revealed they never seem inconsistent with the person McDormand was playing just the scene before. It's a wholly integrated character we come to know bit by bit as McDonagh carefully reframes how we see her. Because McDonagh doesn't lampshade this stuff the way he did in Seven Psychopaths, the cleverness doesn't get in the way of the emotional impact, so we can at once feel Mildred's outrage and be startled by her cruelty. There's nothing here as funny as the material in In Bruges, but it is significantly more affecting.

I saw this yesterday and it's probably my second favorite of the year due to much of what you described above. I could've watched another hour of it without getting tired.

I'm a bit ashamed to admit this was my first McDonaugh film. Hoping to catch In Bruges next.

I was Johnny Kashmir on GD by the way, though I had my current username when I became more of a lurker.

Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:25 am

Popcorn Reviews

Re: Recently Seen

Gerry (2002) - 8/10

Understandably, an acquired taste, but what I like about this film is that it expertly shows the passage of time. Instead of being a suspenseful action film with a multitude of gripping action scenes, Van Sant decided to have the film's pacing flow at a more realistic manner: Slow and drawn out with few moments of action and dialogue. If you were in the scenario in the film, you likely wouldn't experience something action packed non-stop throughout your ordeal. It would be a slow and boring walk each day where it would seem to take hours for your strength to finally run out. This feeling is exactly what's depicted in this film. I do acknowledge that Van Sant likely would've held more people's attentions if the pacing wasn't as unconventional as it was. However, I liked this film quite a bit for the reasons I mentioned above.

what I like about this film is that it expertly shows the passage of time. Instead of being a suspenseful action film with a multitude of gripping action scenes, Van Sant decided to have the film's pacing flow at a more realistic manner: Slow and drawn out with few moments of action and dialogue.

It's probably worth noting that it's an approach that Van Sant lifted wholesale from Bela Tarr. He's not shy about giving credit to Tarr, but there are a number of times in Gerry where he's just flat-out recreating shots from Damnation or Werckmeister Harmonies. Elephant also takes its shuffled timeline directly from Satantango.

_________________"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:24 am

Popcorn Reviews

Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:

It's probably worth noting that it's an approach that Van Sant lifted wholesale from Bela Tarr. He's not shy about giving credit to Tarr, but there are a number of times in Gerry where he's just flat-out recreating shots from Damnation or Werckmeister Harmonies. Elephant also takes its shuffled timeline directly from Satantango.

I haven't seen the films you're referring to, so I have nothing to say on the matter. I've been meaning to watch Werckmeister Harmonies and Satantango for quite some time though as they look interesting. The only Tarr film I've seen is The Turin Horse.

It's kinda like if Thief and Collateral had a baby. The movie takes place over the course of a night in the confines of a getaway car. Frank Grillo plays the titular character, a washed up criminal going on that one last job that just happens to go south. It's good to see Grillo getting some love as he effortlessly carries this movie. It's tightly paced and doesn't overstay its welcome, and the action consistently delivers unlike so many other driving movies that seem to fizzle out after the opening money shot (Baby Driver). It's easily one of the better Netflix produced films.

Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:14 pm

ski petrol

Re: Recently Seen

Popcorn Reviews wrote:

I haven't seen the films you're referring to, so I have nothing to say on the matter. I've been meaning to watch Werckmeister Harmonies and Satantango for quite some time though as they look interesting. The only Tarr film I've seen is The Turin Horse.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum